Sei sulla pagina 1di 28

2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 1 of 28 Pg ID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

DMARCO CRAFT and MICHAELE JACKSON,


Case No.
Plaintiffs,
v. Hon.

RICHARD BILLINGSLEA, in his individual and


official capacities; HAKEEM J. PATTERSON, in
his individual and official capacities; and The
CITY OF DETROIT, a political subdivision of the
State of Michigan;

Defendants.
_____________________________________________/
Solomon M. Radner (P73653)
EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401
Southfield, MI 48033
(248) 291-9719
sradner@excololaw.com
_____________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

NOW COME Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Solomon M. Radner

and EXCOLO LAW, PLLC, complaining of Defendants, respectfully allege as


follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is a civil rights action in which the Plaintiffs seeks relief for the

violation of their rights secured by 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the First, Fourth, and

Fourteenth Amendments.

-1 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 2 of 28 Pg ID 2

2. Jurisdiction of this Court is found upon 28 U.S.C. 1331.

3. Venue is properly laid in the Eastern District of Michigan under 28

U.S.C. 1391(b)(2).

4. The events that give rise to this lawsuit took place at 17046 Harper, a

gas station located in Detroit, Michigan.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff, DMarco Craft (Plaintiff Craft or Mr. Craft), is a law-

abiding citizen of the United States and a resident of the City of Detroit, Michigan.

6. Plaintiff, Michaele Jackson (Plaintiff Jackson or Mr. Jackson), is a

law-abiding citizen of the United States and a resident of the City of Detroit,

Michigan.

7. Defendant Richard Billingslea (Defendant Billingslea) is a Detroit

Police officer, badge number 971, and at all times relevant, was acting under the

color of state law.

8. Defendant Hakeem J. Patterson (Defendant Patterson) is a Detroit

Police officer, badge number 3639, and at all times relevant, was acting under the

color of state law.

9. Defendant City of Detroit (City Defendant) is a political subdivision

of the State of Michigan, acting under color of state law, and is a person for the

purposes of a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action.

-2 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 3 of 28 Pg ID 3

10. At all times relevant hereinafter mentioned, the individual Defendants

were personally acting under the color of state law and/or in in compliance with the

official rules, regulations, laws, statutes, customs, usages and/or practices of the

State of Michigan and/or the City of Detroit.

11. Each and all of the acts of the Defendants alleged herein were

committed by said Defendants while acting within the scope of their employment by

the Detroit Police Department.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

12. On May 31, 2017 at around 1:30 AM, Plaintiffs went to a gas station,

located at 17046 Harper in Detroit, Michigan, to purchase cigarettes.

13. The individual defendants, both of whom are unethical, abusive cops

whose reputations precede them, were already at the gas station prior to the

Plaintiffs arrival.

14. Plaintiff Craft has been harassed by these defendants many times in the

past, for no legal reason.

15. On this occasion, Mr. Craft simply walked into the gas station and

immediately recognized the defendants, and decided that rather than give them an

opportunity to harass him yet again, he turned around and began to walk out of the

gas station.

-3 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 4 of 28 Pg ID 4

16. One of the defendants then called out to Mr. Craft, You aint buying

nothing today?

17. Mr. Craft responded, Cuz I know how you are. Fuck you.

18. Such a comment by Mr. Craft is lawful and is constitutionally protected

speech. Such a comment gives the police no authority to accuse the speaker of

disorderly conduct, as is claimed in the police report.

19. The defendants then followed Mr. Craft out to his car and proceeded to

verbally harass both plaintiffs for about a minute or two, but at no point gave either

plaintiff a direct order or stated that either of them were under arrest for any reason.

20. The defendants were clearly trying to pick a fight with the plaintiffs

without any lawful basis to do so, nor could a lawful basis even be imagined.

21. Rather than allowing two immoral cops to infringe on his rights,

Plaintiff Jackson decided to get out of the car and enter the gas station to purchase

the cigarettes, specifically to show he would not be intimidated by the defendants

unlawful and unethical behavior.

22. Plaintiff Jackson attempted to walk past Billingslea to enter the store,

but Billingslea purposely put himself in front of Jackson at the last second to induce

contact between the two of them.

23. As soon as such contact was made, the defendants attacked Mr. Jackson

without any lawful basis.

-4 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 5 of 28 Pg ID 5

24. The defendants threw Mr. Jackson to the concrete ground, face-first and

held him down, while yelling at Jackson in an aggressive and threatening manner.

25. Defendant Billingslea lied in his incident report by implying that he was

attempting to place Jackson under arrest but couldnt do so. At no point in time did

either defendant advise Mr. Jackson he was under arrest or attempt to handcuff him.

26. Billingslea falsely wrote, Because I wasnt able to place him into

custody, I maintained a visual while more units were en route to assist.

27. This statement is a lie because at no point did Billingslea tell Jackson

he was under arrest or attempt to place Mr. Jacksons hands behind his back to be

handcuffed.

28. Defendant Patterson, while reaching for his handcuffs with his right

hand, used his left hand to grab Jacksons right hand and twist it behind his back.

Jackson did not resist at all.

29. Instead of handcuffing Jackson, Patterson deferred to Billingslea who

was kneeling on top of Jackson with his right knee on Jacksons back, Billingsleas

right hand holding Jacksons neck and face against the concrete, and Billingsleas

left hand holding Jacksons left hand against the concrete. In this position,

Billingslea commanded Jackson, Dont you ever put your fuckin hands on me.

-5 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 6 of 28 Pg ID 6

30. Billingslea never told Jackson he was under arrest or to put his hands

behind his back, nor did he attempt to bring Jacksons left hand behind his back for

handcuffing.

31. Instead, Billingslea, stood up and let go of Jackson. Patterson then

followed Billingsleas lead by releasing Jacksons right hand and placing the

handcuffs back in his belt.

32. The defendants then stood over Jackson as Jackson stood back up, all

the while yelling at him about putting his hands on them.

33. The defendants were acting like bullies, not like officers of the law,

sworn to protect the public.

34. The defendants did not attempt to place Mr. Jackson under arrest.

35. During the first assault committed by both defendants of Mr. Jackson

outside of the gas station, Mr. Craft was recording the events with this cell phone

camera.

36. Plaintiff Craft was not interfering in any way with a police investigation

while he was recording the events.

37. Defendant Billingslea, upon realizing that Plaintiff Craft was recording

the unlawful assault, took a break from assaulting Plaintiff Jackson, who at the time

was lying face-first on the ground with both defendants on top of him.

-6 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 7 of 28 Pg ID 7

38. Plaintiff Craft was telling Plaintiff Jackson chill bro and dont say

nothing bro and similar things. Plaintiff Craft was not acting aggressive in any way.

39. Defendant Billingslea stood up and walked towards Plaintiff Craft and

said Back up!

40. Plaintiff Craft then did back up and Defendant Billingslea turned his

attention back to Plaintiff Jackson, whom the defendants were now permitting to

stand up while yelling at him not to put his hands on them again.

41. Plaintiff Craft then said to the defendants, in agitated manner due to

their clear hypocrisy, but its cool for you to put your hands on me?!

42. Defendant Billingslea then turned towards Plaintiff Craft and said I

didnt put my hands on you as Billingslea walked towards Craft and unlawfully

pushed Crafts cell phone so that it could not record him.

43. Plaintiff Craft then backed up and walked backwards while still keeping

the camera pointed at Defendant Billingslea who was now walking towards Plaintiff

Craft in an aggressive and threatening manner.

44. Plaintiff Craft then said, as he was walking backwards as described

above, Why are you walking on me? Im not doing shit to you.

45. Defendant Billingslea then answered, Im about to mace you, dog!

-7 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 8 of 28 Pg ID 8

46. As defendant Billingslea made this threat, he pulled out his mace from

the left side of his belt with his left hand, transferred it to this right hand, and shook

it up, thereby giving credence to his threat.

47. Plaintiff Craft replied to Billingslea, For what?

48. Billingslea then answered, You better back your ass up! as he

physically pushed Craft with his left hand.

49. This is after Craft had already walked backwards with Billingslea

walking towards him, for at least ten feet.

50. Plaintiff Craft then asked, How far do you want me to back up?

51. Defendant Billingslea did not answer Crafts question.

52. The reason Billingslea did not answer Crafts question is simple:

Billingslea was simply trying to intimidate Craft to stop his recording, not because

he perceived Craft as a threat in any way.

53. Defendant Billingslea apparently was still feeling that he had some

pent-up aggression that he needed to release through a fight.

54. Defendant Billingslea then walked back towards Plaintiff Jackson who

was still being verbally harassed by Defendant Patterson.

55. Defendant Billingslea pointed his right index finger at Plaintiff Jackson

only inches from Jacksons face and announced, Motherfucker, let me tell you

something. If you walk up on me like that again, Ima knock yo fuckin top off!

-8 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 9 of 28 Pg ID 9

56. Immediately after Billingslea began yelling at Plaintiff Jackson, Mr.

Jackson turned around and walked away in an effort to avoid confrontation and

deescalate the situation.

57. Instead, defendant Billingslea followed him for at least twenty feet,

repeatedly yelling the above threat, but never at any point did he nor Defendant

Patterson ever order for Mr. Jackson to stop or freeze, nor did either of them state

that Mr. Jackson was under arrest or disobeying an order of a police officer.

58. Plaintiff Jackson then went into the gas station to purchase cigarettes,

the original reason the plaintiffs went there in the first place.

59. Billingslea aggressively pursued Mr. Jackson into the gas station and

immediately confronted him again while Jackson was at the counter trying to

purchase cigarettes from the clerk.

60. Patterson followed behind shortly thereafter, just in time to witness

Billingslea retrieve his mace from his utility belt, again.

61. Billingslea, despite claiming in his report that he warned Jackson before

spraying him, issued no such warning.

62. Plaintiff Jackson was not attacking anyone immediately prior to

Billingslea retrieving his mace.

63. Despite this, Defendant Billingslea sprayed Mr. Jackson directly in the

eyes and face for several seconds, at which point Mr. Jackson turned around, facing

-9 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 10 of 28 Pg ID 10

toward the clerk at the counter once again. Mr. Jackson somehow maintained his

composure and stayed calm while he was being maced, and afterwards.

64. Mr. Jackson then stood still for a few seconds, reeling from the pain of

the mace in his eyes, and now with his back to Billingslea.

65. Defendant Billingslea, without any warning whatsoever, then put his

right arm around Mr. Jacksons throat, and violently spun Jackson around and body-

slammed Mr. Jackson to the floor.

66. Defendant Billingslea threw Mr. Jackson down to the ground so hard

that Jackson was thrown at least 3-4 feet and landed on the floor after first slamming

into a metal rack of Hostess treats, such as Snoballs, and Dingdongs.

67. Mr. Jackson was then lying face-down on the floor and not moving,

with Billingslea on top of him.

68. Mr. Jackson was not resisting in any way. Defendant Patterson and Mr.

Craft remained remarkably calm during this incident and Patterson then turned

towards Craft and pushed him out of the gas station while telling Craft, Im gonna

need you to back up.

69. Plaintiff Craft initially backed up as instructed, but then entered back

into the store and stood at a distance while recording Billingsleas assault on

Jackson.

- 10 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 11 of 28 Pg ID 11

70. During this assault, Billingslea forcefully and maliciously rammed his

knee into Mr. Jackson in the back and midsection several times, despite Jackson not

resisting in any way. Jackson was still lying face-down on the floor with Billingslea

on top of him during this kneeing, as he had remained since he was body-slammed

to the ground from Billingsleas WWE-style take-down.

71. Defendant Billingslea then pointed at Mr. Craft and yelled Get the

fuck out of here! and again, Patterson pushed Craft towards the exit door.

72. Plaintiff Craft, knowing he had the right to record the assault, returned

into the store and continued recording from a distance.

73. Defendants knew Plaintiff Craft had recorded their unlawful actions on

his cell phone camera, and threatened that they would arrest him if he didnt hand it

over.

74. Defendant Billingslea then unlawfully took Plaintiff Crafts cell phone

to place on evidence without a warrant and without any lawful basis.

75. Defendant Billingsleas unlawful taking of Plaintiff Crafts cell phone

was done in blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment and the First Amendment.

76. No lawful basis existed for Defendants to take Plaintiff Crafts cell

phone.

77. Defendants then spent some time viewing the contents of his Crafts

phone.

- 11 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 12 of 28 Pg ID 12

78. The defendants appeared to be deleting things from the cell phone.

79. The defendants then slammed Mr. Crafts cell phone onto the clerks

countertop, smashing the glass screen, and proceeded to apparently throw it into a

nearby garbage can.

80. A different police officer later retrieved Mr. Crafts phone form the

garbage can after learning from Mr. Craft what had happened to it, and took the

phone into police custody.

81. Plaintiff Craft was then released at the scene but his cell phone was not

returned to him at that time.

82. Plaintiff Jackson was placed under arrest, though he was never told by

any police officer on that date what his charges were.

83. Mr. Jackson was then taken to an emergency room by ambulance for

treatment of the injuries he sustained during Billingsleas assault on him.

84. Once released from the hospital later that day, unknown police officers

took Mr. Jackson to the precinct for booking and at that time he was told that he was

being charged with felony resisting arrest however, this was another lie.

85. The defendants then submitted a request to the prosecutors office for a

warrant for the arrest of Mr. Jackson and it was denied on June 1, 2017, and to date,

Mr. Jackson has not been charged with a crime.

- 12 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 13 of 28 Pg ID 13

86. Despite the denial of the warrant, Mr. Jackson was not released from

the defendants custody until late in the afternoon the next day, on June 2, 2017,

around 4:00 pm.

87. Mr. Jackson was not told at any point during those 3 days why he was

arrested, nor was he given any information upon his release, leaving him to wonder

whether or not he actually was being charged with a crime.

88. Several days later, Plaintiff Craft went to the police station and

retrieved his cell phone, which was returned to him in its broken state.

89. Immediately, Mr. Craft attempted to turn his cell phone on to see if the

footage he had recorded on May 31, 2017 was preserved, but alas he could not turn

it on.

90. The defendants outrageous conduct was unlawful and malicious from

start to finish.

91. The defendants, by engaging in this type of unlawful, thug-like conduct

while acting under the color of law, exacerbated an already strained relationship

between the police and the non-police citizens of the city theyre sworn to protect,

and are deserving of serious punishment for their malicious actions.

92. Plaintiffs seek damages, both punitive and compensatory, an award of

costs and attorneys fees, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.

- 13 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 14 of 28 Pg ID 14

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Use of Excessive Force against Plaintiff Michaele Jackson in Violation of


42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

As to All Defendants

93. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set

forth above and incorporate them as if fully set forth herein.

94. Neither Mr. Jackson nor Mr. Craft did anything unlawful to provoke

Defendants.

95. All the aforementioned acts of the defendants were committed

maliciously, recklessly, intentionally, grossly negligently, and/or knowingly,

without any lawful purpose and without good faith.

96. All of the aforementioned acts deprived Plaintiff of the rights,

privileges and immunities guaranteed to citizens of the United States by the First,

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of

America, and in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.

97. The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned

individual Defendants in their capacities as police officers, with the entire actual

and/or apparent authority attendant thereto.

98. The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned

individual Defendants in their capacities as police officers, pursuant to the customs,

- 14 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 15 of 28 Pg ID 15

usages, practices, procedures, and the rules of the Detroit Department of Police, all

under the supervision of ranking officers of said department.

99. Defendants collectively and individually, while acting under the color

of state law, engaged in conduct that constituted a custom, usage, practice, procedure

or rule of the respective municipality/authority, which is forbidden under the

Constitution of the United States.

100. Defendants actions constitute an excessive use of force which a

reasonable police officer would not have used.

101. As a proximate result of the illegal and unconstitutional acts of the

Defendants, Plaintiff Jackson was harmed and suffers damages for his physical,

mental, and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, humiliation, and

embarrassment.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Unlawful Arrest of Both Plaintiffs Under 42 U.S.C. 1983


and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

(As to All Defendants)

102. Plaintiff repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set

forth above and incorporate them as if fully set forth herein.

103. Plaintiffs were both handcuffed and detained by the defendants.

104. After being handcuffed, Plaintiffs were not free to leave.

- 15 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 16 of 28 Pg ID 16

105. Plaintiff Jackson was formally arrested and taken into custody after

receiving medical care for the macing of which he was a victim.

106. Plaintiff Craft was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car.

Defendants ordered him to tell them the code to his cell phone or else he would be

charged with a crime and taken to jail.

107. All the aforementioned acts of defendants were committed by the

defendants maliciously, recklessly, intentionally, grossly negligently, and/or

knowingly, without any lawful purpose and without good faith.

108. All of the aforementioned acts deprived Plaintiff of the rights,

privileges and immunities guaranteed to citizens of the United States by the First,

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of

America, and in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.

109. The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned

individual Defendants in their capacities as police officers, with the entire actual

and/or apparent authority attendant thereto.

110. The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned

individual Defendants in their capacities as police officers, pursuant to the customs,

usages, practices, procedures, and the rules of the Detroit Department of Police, all

under the supervision of ranking officers of said department.

- 16 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 17 of 28 Pg ID 17

111. Defendants collectively and individually, while acting under the color

of state law, engaged in conduct that constituted a custom, usage, practice, procedure

or rule of the respective municipality/authority, which is forbidden under the

Constitution of the United States.

112. Defendants actions constituted unlawful arrests of Plaintiffs Jackson

and Craft.

113. As a proximate result of the illegal and unconstitutional acts of the

Defendants, Plaintiffs Craft and Jackson were harmed and suffer damages for their

physical, mental, and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, humiliation, and

embarrassment.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Unlawful Seizure Plaintiff DMarco Crafts Cell Phone Under 42 U.S.C.


1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

(As to Defendant Richard Billingslea)

114. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set

forth above and incorporate them as if fully set forth herein.

115. Defendants knew Plaintiff Craft had recorded their unlawful actions on

his cell phone camera.

116. Defendant Billingslea unlawfully took Plaintiff Crafts cell phone to

place on evidence without a warrant and without any lawful basis.

- 17 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 18 of 28 Pg ID 18

117. Defendant Billingsleas unlawful taking of Plaintiff Crafts cell phone

was done in blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment and the First Amendment.

118. No lawful basis existed for Defendants to take Plaintiff Crafts cell

phone.

119. Defendants then spent some time viewing the contents of his Crafts

phone.

120. The defendants then smashed the phone and dropped it into the garbage.

121. A different officer retrieved it form the garbage can and took control of

custody of it.

122. Plaintiff Craft was then released but his cell phone was not returned to

him at that time.

123. Days later Plaintiff Craft went to the police station and retrieved his cell

phone.

124. As a proximate result of the illegal and unconstitutional acts of the

Defendants, Plaintiff Craft was harmed and suffers damages.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Unlawful Search of Plaintiff DMarco Crafts Cell Phone


Under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

(As to Defendant Richard Billingslea)

125. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set

forth above and incorporate them as if fully set forth herein.

- 18 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 19 of 28 Pg ID 19

126. Defendants knew Plaintiff Craft had recorded their unlawful actions on

his cell phone camera.

127. Defendant Billingslea unlawfully took Plaintiff Crafts cell phone to

place on evidence without a warrant and without any lawful basis.

128. Defendant Billingsleas unlawful taking of Plaintiff Crafts cell phone

was done in blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment.

129. No lawful basis existed for Defendants to take Plaintiff Crafts cell

phone.

130. Even if there had been a basis to arrest Plaintiff Craft and seize his cell

phone during a search incident to arrest, the police do not have the right to SEARCH

an arrestees cell phone. Defendant Billingslea, in blatant violation of this law,

ordered Plaintiff Craft to tell him the passcode to the cell phone or face arrest and

transportation to jail.

131. In response to this unlawful threat, Plaintiff Craft did as he was ordered

by Defendant Billingslea, and told him the passcode to unlock his cell phone.

132. Defendant Billingslea then, in blatant violation and disregard of the

Constitution, searched the contents of Plaintiff Crafts cell phone.

133. This search was done without a warrant or any lawful basis.

134. As a proximate result of the illegal and unconstitutional acts of the

Defendants, Plaintiff Craft was harmed and suffers damages.

- 19 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 20 of 28 Pg ID 20

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Unlawfully Preventing Plaintiff DMarco Craft From Exercising his First


Amendment Right to Record the Police in a Public Place, Under 42 U.S.C.
1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments

(As to All Defendants)

135. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set

forth above and incorporate them as if fully set forth herein.

136. Defendants knew Plaintiff Craft had recorded their unlawful actions on

his cell phone camera.

137. Defendant Billingslea unlawfully took Plaintiff Crafts cell phone to

place on evidence without a warrant and without any lawful basis.

138. Defendant Billingsleas unlawful taking of Plaintiff Crafts cell phone

was done in blatant violation of the First Amendment.

139. No lawful basis existed for Defendants to take Plaintiff Crafts cell

phone.

140. There is a First Amendment right to record the police in a public place

so long as such recording does not interfere with the polices lawful activities. Not

only were the polices activities unlawful, but Plaintiff Crafts recording them in no

way interfered with them.

141. As a proximate result of the illegal and unconstitutional acts of the

Defendants, Plaintiff Craft was harmed and suffers damages.

- 20 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 21 of 28 Pg ID 21

AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Conversion of Plaintiff DMarco Crafts Cell Phone Under MCL 600.2919a

(As to All Defendants)

142. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set

forth above and incorporate them as if fully set forth herein.

143. Conversion is any distinct act of dominion wrongfully exerted over

another's personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights therein.

144. These defendants saw Craft recording their unlawful actions with his

cell phone camera.

145. These defendants unlawfully took possession of Crafts cell phone and

intentionally broke it. They only allowed it to be returned to him days later after it

had been broken while in the control and custody of the police.

146. The above acts of Defendants seizing and destroying Plaintiff Crafts

cell phone violates MCL 600.2919a.

147. As a proximate result of the unlawful acts of the Defendants, Plaintiff

Craft was harmed and suffers monetary damages.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION


Assault and Battery Against Both Plaintiffs

(As to All Defendants)

148. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set

forth above and incorporate them as if fully set forth herein.

- 21 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 22 of 28 Pg ID 22

149. Defendants intentionally made unlawful physical contact with both

Plaintiffs when:

a. Both Billingslea and Patterson physically threw Plaintiff Jackson to the

ground outside of the gas station and forcefully held his face against the

cement;

b. Defendant Billingslea walked aggressively towards Plaintiff Craft and

pushed Mr. Crafts cell phone camera out of the way, then took mace

out of his belt and threatened to use it on Mr. Craft when he was

complying with all of Billingsleas requests;

c. Defendant Billingslea maced Mr. Jackson inside the gas station;

d. Defendant Billingslea grabbed Plaintiff Jackson by the throat, threw

him into a metal Hostess rack, and body-slammed him to the ground

inside the gas station; and

e. Defendant Patterson physically pushed Plaintiff Craft on several

occasions inside and/or near the exit door of the gas station.

150. All of the above physical contact with plaintiffs was initiated by the

defendants without any lawful basis and without any unlawful provocation by either

of the plaintiffs.

151. Such willful and harmful acts of force were done with the intention to

cause harm to Plaintiffs.

- 22 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 23 of 28 Pg ID 23

152. As a proximate result of the malicious, illegal and unconstitutional acts

of the Defendants, Plaintiffs Craft and Jackson were harmed and suffer damages for

their physical, mental, and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, humiliation,

and embarrassment.

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and The


First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

(As to Defendant City of Detroit)

153. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set

forth above and incorporate them as if fully set forth herein.

154. A municipality is liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 if the acts that violated

a persons right were undertaken pursuant to the municipalitys policies and

customs.

155. As the first alternate basis for liability against Defendant City of

Detroit, the policy maker for Defendants, the mayor, or someone else in a policy

making position, delegated full authority and/or empowered the individual

Defendants.

156. That delegation of authority by the actual policy maker of Defendant

City of Detroit placed the individual Defendants in a policy making position, and the

acts of the individual Defendants may fairly be said to be those of the municipality.

- 23 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 24 of 28 Pg ID 24

157. Those acts therefore subject Defendant City of Detroit to liability for

the constitutional violations of the individual Defendants.

158. Defendant City of Detroit directly caused the constitutional violations

suffered by Plaintiffs, and is liable for the damages caused as a result of the conduct

of the individual Defendants. The conduct of the individual Defendant officers was

a direct consequence of the policies and practices of Defendant City of Detroit.

159. At all times relevant in this complaint, direct and proximate cause of

the damages and injuries complained of were caused by policies, practices and /or

customs developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned by

Defendant City of Detroit, including the failure:

a. To adequately supervise and train its officers and agents, including

individual Defendants, thereby failing to adequately discourage further

constitutional violations on the part of its police officers;

b. To properly and adequately monitor and discipline its officers,

including individual Defendants; and

c. To adequately and properly investigate citizen complaints of police

misconduct and instead, acts of misconduct were tolerated by the

Defendant City of Detroit.

160. Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional

rights of the Plaintiffs. As a direct and proximate result of the acts as stated herein

- 24 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 25 of 28 Pg ID 25

by each of the Defendants, each of the Plaintiffs constitutional rights have been

violated.

161. As a proximate result of Defendants illegal and unconstitutional acts,

Plaintiffs suffered physical, mental, and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish,

suffering, humiliation, and embarrassment.

162. Upon information and belief, the City of Detroit has a de facto

unwritten policy, custom, or procedure in place wherein it only perseveres footage

which shows the police acting like heroes. It allows for and encourages the

destruction of evidence that incriminates the police or exposes them to civil or

criminal liability.

163. Based upon this policy, Plaintiff Crafts cell phone was taken from him

by the police and destroyed. The alleged basis for this taking, according to the police

reports, is that it was taken for evidence.

164. The police taking ones cellphone without a warrant and without

consent for evidence, would likewise be an unconstitutional policy, since such a

taking clearly violates the Constitution.

165. The police took custody and control of the surveillance video footage

of the gas station where this entire incident took place.

- 25 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 26 of 28 Pg ID 26

166. Upon information and belief, the police destroyed, altered, or edited the

footage from the gas station surveillance system in accordance with the above-

mentioned unwritten de facto policy, procedure or custom.

167. Upon information and belief, the defendants were not subjected to any

disciplinary action despite their unlawful actions, all of which were recorded on

surveillance and could easily have been reviewed by Internal Affairs.

168. Upon information and belief, the police did not attempt to extract the

video footage from Crafts cell phone before they destroyed it.

169. In accordance with this unwritten de facto policy, procedure, or custom,

that footage has been destroyed by the defendants and can in no way ever be

recovered this was accomplished when they smashed Crafts cell phone after they

unlawfully viewed the contents of it.

170. The video from Crafts camera presumably showed footage that would

be highly detrimental to the defendants in this lawsuit, so they intentionally

destroyed it, per the above-mentioned de facto unwritten policy, procedure, or

custom.

171. Upon information and belief, the defendants do not have in their

possession a copy of the footage from the gas station.

172. Upon information and belief, the defendants do not have a copy of the

footage from Crafts cell phone.

- 26 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 27 of 28 Pg ID 27

173. The City of Detroit does nothing meaningful to train, supervise,

discipline, or control its officers to prevent the actions taken by the officers as

outlined in this lawsuit.

174. Upon information and belief, there was Audio/Visual recording

equipment on the semi-marked scout 143802 vehicle being driven by the defendants

on the day of this incident. However, the de facto unwritten policy, procedure, or

custom indicates that officers should either turn off such recording equipment prior

to engaging in unlawful activity, allow it to be recorded over by not preserving it, or

by simply lying about it and saying it was not working in the event they accidentally

recorded their own unlawful actions. Therefore, upon information and belief, the

defendants will claim no such footage exists and they will either claim the equipment

was not on, was not functioning, or was recorded over by not being preserved.

175. This failure to supervise, discipline, or control its officers demonstrates

deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and is directly

responsible for the individual defendants acting the way they did as outlined in this

lawsuit.

176. Further the de facto unwritten policy, procedure, or custom, described

herein, demonstrates deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the

plaintiffs and is directly responsible for the individual defendants acting the way

they did as outlined in this complaint.

- 27 -
2:17-cv-12752-GAD-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 08/22/17 Pg 28 of 28 Pg ID 28

177. As a proximate result of the unconstitutional acts of Defendant City of

Detroit, Plaintiffs Craft and Jackson were harmed and suffer damages for their

physical, mental, and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, humiliation, and

embarrassment.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment and pray for the following

relief, jointly and severally, against all Defendants:

a. Full and fair compensatory damages in an amount to be determined


by a jury;
b. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury;
c. Reasonable attorneys fees and the costs and disbursements of this
action; and
d. Any such other relief as appears just and proper.

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable, pursuant to \
Fed. R.Civ. P. 38(b).
Respectfully Submitted,
EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
By: /S/ Solomon M. Radner
SOLOMON M. RADNER (P73653)
Attorney for Plaintiffs
26700 Lahser Rd, Suite 401
Southfield, MI 48033
(866) 939-2656
Dated: August 22, 2017 sradner@excololaw.com

- 28 -

Potrebbero piacerti anche